Should the railways be nationalised?

[Halb]

Should the railways be nationalised?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34306333

Line by line!!!

Only a 50/50 answer, but if any wish to have a yes (but privately managed) and a no (no subsidy) I can add it.

[Halb]

bhstewie said:

And most people won't care if the answer is nationalised or privatised so long as that is fixed and they can get cheap rail travel on demand.

Maybe get the Germans to run the whole UK nertwork?

[Halb]

Indeed, t'was a great shame that Brunel lost the gauge war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railwa...

[Halb]

Rick101 said:

I think it is worse now. It is essentially privatized for profits but state supported for losses.

State could make it financially worthwhile as clearly evidenced by East Coast.

Exactly. The system works, eh?

[Halb]

RichB said:

The railway boom of the mid 19thC saw lines being built everywhere by private investors. If you look at the history of the railways there were lines from the most obscure village to somewhere else, often used for goods; getting cattle, sheep, corn and wheat etc. to market towns. Most had gone bankrupt by 1900 and all long since gone. The idea that there can be any competition on the railways is a strange one. There cannot really be true competition because the rails all simply go from A to B, so what will you do, wait for another train because it's cheaper or has better seats? I guess it may be faster but then you have that choice now. I accept that from London to Scotland this may have been the case but one line went to Edinburgh up the east coast the other to Glasgow via the west so frankly still not really a choice. The great railway advertising that you saw in the 1930s was to attract customers to go to holiday destinations in their region so not really what we're talking about these days when we say there's no competition. Hummm shall I go to Morcombe Bay from Euston or Paignton on the GWR what a choice...

People then forget, or weren't born, when the railways were nationalised; British Railways were slow, dirty, strike ridden and under invested. In fact the dreadful lack of investment in the railways by any government after the war up to the '70s lead to the state they were in 10-20 years ago.

The real issue now is the way it's been privatised, instead of breaking it into regions the government decided that the rails (and infrastructure) would be one company and the trains run like privatised buses on someone else's track. Personally I would have liked to see it revert to 4 main operating companies with responsibility for everything in their region. I still think this would be better than re-nationalisation.

Nice history lesson, and I like that idea. Something needs to be done.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are you from Bolton, Tonker?

[Halb]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Do you say, 'buzz', when referring to those elongated cars of the masses?

[Halb]

gothatway said:

On (at least some) Chinese railways, you can only get through the ticket barrier onto the platform when your train is the next one due on that platform, so there's no chance of using an invalid ticket to travel. And you then line up at a particular mark on the platform where the nearest door to your (always reserved) seat will be, so loading the train is always quick. It does require huge station concourses, with sufficient platforms to ensure that there is time to clear them before the next wave of passengers are allowed onto them.
A massive contrast to India, where it's every man for himself - but then the railway infrastructure in India is mostly pretty ancient whereas China has invested in modern railways.

Something the Chinese have got right?